Genesis Creation OR THIS?

[Alithis]

So you were talking to yourself. Okay.

i was replying to the poster .... are you ok ?

 

[Givemeareason]

There is a thing called the philosophy of science. If this person is a scientist I w

 

[Alithis]

That doesn't sound very Christian to me.

his profile says christian seeker .. which basically means hes not christian but is using the "title " to slip under the radar

 

[Givemeareason]

his profile says christian seeker .. which basically means hes not christian but is using the "title " to slip under the radar

Then if he is not Christian it appears he seeks to deceive Christians. If he is a scientist there is a thing called the philosophy of science. I would like him to state his philosophy of science, so I can try to determine if he is Christian, scientist.... or something else?

 

[Alithis]

Then if he is not Christian it appears he seeks to deceive Christians. If he is a scientist there is a thing called the philosophy of science. I would like him to state his philosophy of science, so I can try to determine if he is Christian, scientist.... or something else?

fair enough ...

 

[Givemeareason]

fair enough ...

Since it appears this person is on the forum right now, I wonder if he is thinking about what we have said?

 

[AllanV]

Quantum mechanics has holes in it too, that doesn't mean we throw it out the window.


Actually all the evidence for the Theory of Evolution is widely publicized, I can provide you some links if you'd like.


No, there's not. "Flood Geology" has been refuted for the better part of a century. The ancient age of the earth is one of the most well-supported pieces of empirical knowledge we have in science. Even a cursory examination of just a couple of the multiple converging lines of evidence will convince any reasonable person not suffering from rampant confirmation bias.


That's dead wrong. The evidence for this is found all throughout the fossil record and is also readily apparent in genetics. We can trace evolution through genomes. In fact the dna evidence is so compelling that to deny evolution at this point is just completely absurd.

It would be expected that the usual line would be taken. There is a kind of bullying being perpetrated and for most it is better to take the standard line. Who wants to be ridiculed. The preference is to listen to the conclusions of educated intelligent qualified people who work in their respective fields and hear both sides.
Most people do not have an ability to take a subject to the depth required.

 

[AllanV]

No, there's not. "Flood Geology" has been refuted for the better part of a century. The ancient age of the earth is one of the most well-supported pieces of empirical knowledge we have in science. Even a cursory examination of just a couple of the multiple converging lines of evidence will convince any reasonable person not suffering from rampant confirmation bias.

That's dead wrong. The evidence for this is found all throughout the fossil record and is also readily apparent in genetics. We can trace evolution through genomes. In fact the dna evidence is so compelling that to deny evolution at this point is just completely absurd.

The grand canyon is used as one example where the layers said to indicate millions of years have been deposited rapidly. The lines between the layers are too even, there is no erosion apparent and material is deposited course to fine from bottom to top.
There are examples of erosion around the whole planet probably caused by water erosion in the past.
Often the question is asked where is the water and Jacques Cousteau and others have calculated that there is enough water to cover the whole planet by up to 2 miles. The continents have drifted apart and sea trenches have appeared. The time scales and erosion in evolutionary ideas would make the sea much more salty than it is.
The fossil record isn't what it is being said to be. It requires special conditions to fossilize especially on the scale shown and indicates a catastrophic event. Almost all creatures that are predated fall apart unless they are covered quickly which is necessary to exclude oxygen.

The universe is entropic and it would be expected that this would occur in genetics as well. Mutations occur at a greater rate and information is lost. Information is not gained and only rarely is there anything beneficial occurring.
Adaption is totally acceptable but is not evolution.

 

[AllanV]

I think you are misinformed. This idea sounds more like it came from creationists rather than from scientists. If creationists claim that all the evidence is not being presented it is because their evidence which they supposedly have is contrived in order to support their own foregone conclusions. If you think me wrong and you are are aware of this evidence can you refer me to it? True science looks for evidence while false science looks for conclusions first and then looks for the evidence.

Much time is taken in being informed. The information is coming from people who are experts and work in the field and have usually changed their ideas as they discover things and observe them.
The so called true science cannot be trusted because they have developed an idea from Darwin and then produced the evidence to fit the conclusion. Even Darwin said if the cell was complex his ideas would have some difficulty and wouldn't work.
It has actually taken years to gather the presented information by the previously mentioned Scientists.

 

[Givemeareason]

It would be expected that the usual line would be taken. There is a kind of bullying being perpetrated and for most it is better to take the standard line. Who wants to be ridiculed. The preference is to listen to the conclusions of educated intelligent qualified people who work in their respective fields and hear both sides.
Most people do not have an ability to take a subject to the depth required.

The reason creationists are ridiculed by people who understand science is because creationists claim to be science while their methods are completely wrong. Evidence is just evidence. It means nothing unless it is understood. In order for you to understand that you must first be willing to take a more impartial view as many Christians have done and science does in general. You cannot look at science with the intent to prove God or disprove science as nearly all creationists do. Detaching yourself from your belief in God for a bit will not end your belief. If you fear that to happen you will be unable to do this as so many other Christians are unable to do. But the fact that other Christians can overcome this proves that you can if you choose to as well. If you continue listening to creationists you will only compile evidence being used in the vain attempt to disprove science. And you will learn nothing.

 

[ALoveDivine]

The grand canyon is used as one example where the layers said to indicate millions of years have been deposited rapidly. The lines between the layers are too even, there is no erosion apparent and material is deposited course to fine from bottom to top.
There are examples of erosion around the whole planet probably caused by water erosion in the past.
Often the question is asked where is the water and Jacques Cousteau and others have calculated that there is enough water to cover the whole planet by up to 2 miles. The continents have drifted apart and sea trenches have appeared. The time scales and erosion in evolutionary ideas would make the sea much more salty than it is.
The fossil record isn't what it is being said to be. It requires special conditions to fossilize especially on the scale shown and indicates a catastrophic event. Almost all creatures that are predated fall apart unless they are covered quickly which is necessary to exclude oxygen.

The universe is entropic and it would be expected that this would occur in genetics as well. Mutations occur at a greater rate and information is lost. Information is not gained and only rarely is there anything beneficial occurring.
Adaption is totally acceptable but is not evolution.

Literally everything you just said is pseudoscientific nonsense that has been refuted time and time again. You cannot make a case for YEC by paraphrazing Answers in Genesis.

Confirmation bias. You are fishing for 'evidence' to support your foregone conclusion while ignoring any and all evidence that contradicts your narrowly defined view of creation. This is exactly what AIG and ICR do. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Using their same fallacious reasoning I could convince you that the Easter Bunny created the universe out of a magical egg six thousand years ago.

 

[AllanV]

The bible is a book that still struggles to be understood. Having been around all this time and still not being understood would seem to decrease the probability of it being understood. But at the same time humanity and technology are growing at exponential rates which might now be used to understand even the bible. The problem with Genesis is that some people are trying to use it as a science text. Indeed some would now like to destroy the bible due to the manner in which it has been misused. It is universally misunderstood by many believers and nonbelievers. When the bible is used to deny science, it is biting the hand that feeds it. Entropy, methods of storing energy, gravity, atoms and other concepts you refer to are the result of science. But the methods of science are to leave no question unanswered. It seeks and will not stop as evidenced in your own words. So we are left to ponder without always knowing where we are going. Christianity needs to latch on and go for the ride and maybe it is happening but to help provide moral guidance rather than trying to throw our knowledge behind us.

There is a supernatural aspect and this is difficult. There is a way of going deeper beyond the mind that is usually thought from. The life develops with a way of seeing and making sense of the surroundings and then belief can be suddenly changed, in a few short moments.
A whole new direction is then taken, it is about belief in God and not in own self, the complete perspective is changed. The way in is shown and complete transformation is possible.

The Goal is the same Love of the Son Jesus and the indwelling of God is then possible.

 

[Givemeareason]

There is a supernatural aspect and this is difficult. There is a way of going deeper beyond the mind that is usually thought from. The life develops with a way of seeing and making sense of the surroundings and then belief can be suddenly changed, in a few short moments.
A whole new direction is then taken, it is about belief in God and not in own self, the complete perspective is changed. The way in is shown and complete transformation is possible.

The Goal is the same Love of the Son Jesus and the indwelling of God is then possible.

That being the case, you should probably not engage in trying to prove God which is what creationists try to indirectly do.

 

[AllanV]

The reason creationists are ridiculed by people who understand science is because creationists claim to be science while their methods are completely wrong. Evidence is just evidence. It means nothing unless it is understood. In order for you to understand that you must first be willing to take a more impartial view as many Christians have done and science does in general. You cannot look at science with the intent to prove God or disprove science as nearly all creationists do. Detaching yourself from your belief in God for a bit will not end your belief. If you fear that to happen you will be unable to do this as so many other Christians are unable to do. But the fact that other Christians can overcome this proves that you can if you choose to as well. If you continue listening to creationists you will only compile evidence being used in the vain attempt to disprove science. And you will learn nothing.

What you have written describes the bubble you have placed your self in. You are making assumptions.

The people who make these observations are scientists who after working in the field, with the evidence are making something of a stand because they have changed their view over time.

There is a need to look at the whole topic afresh as technology is improving. Physics shows something different to the story being told suggesting the predominant theory is inadequately explained.
The problem is science isn't being used as in a forensic crime scene but is mostly becoming opinion only.
There is no attempt being made to disprove science as a good tool because observations are being made that are contrary to a popular idea. It can be shown that there are many ideas known to be wrong but they still appear in text books as fact. It is best to get the latest edition.

This isn't my area at all but I am just mentioning that there are some other views held and then you make what appears to be a strong assumption. Do you have any expertise in the science, because I do not. I do not spend much of my time in this area at all. But the areas that are worked in indicate either stupidity or a fraud is being perpetrated on everyone. Where Humans are involved some care needs to be taken. It all appears something like the school yard but the people have become mature in looks but not in their ability to get passed the use of psychology and subconscious bombardment.
People are being ripped off continuously. What sort of picture do you have of this world. Do you have a TV? Are the news reports trusted, what is real?

Have you noticed you are twisting this discussion and making the whole thing to be about a personal failing based on the assumption I listen to creationists. My work and training require that a more careful measured approach is taken.

 

[AllanV]

That being the case, you should probably not engage in trying to prove God which is what creationists try to indirectly do.

There is no requirement to prove God. The seed is either inherent or not and a person cannot be convinced beyond what their mind will allow. It is good to share with believers and this forum is called Christian but there is some indication it could be run by Atheists.

 

[Givemeareason]

What you have written describes the bubble you have placed your self in. You are making assumptions.

The people who make these observations are scientists who after working in the field, with the evidence are making something of a stand because they have changed their view over time.

There is a need to look at the whole topic afresh as technology is improving. Physics shows something different to the story being told suggesting the predominant theory is inadequately explained.
The problem is science isn't being used as in a forensic crime scene but is mostly becoming opinion only.
There is no attempt being made to disprove science as a good tool because observations are being made that are contrary to a popular idea. It can be shown that there are many ideas known to be wrong but they still appear in text books as fact. It is best to get the latest edition.

This isn't my area at all but I am just mentioning that there are some other views held and then you make what appears to be a strong assumption. Do you have any expertise in the science, because I do not. I do not spend much of my time in this area at all. But the areas that are worked in indicate either stupidity or a fraud is being perpetrated on everyone. Where Humans are involved some care needs to be taken. It all appears something like the school yard but the people have become mature in looks but not in their ability to get passed the use of psychology and subconscious bombardment.
People are being ripped off continuously. What sort of picture do you have of this world. Do you have a TV? Are the news reports trusted, what is real?

Have you noticed you are twisting this discussion and making the whole thing to be about a personal failing based on the assumption I listen to creationists. My work and training require that a more careful measured approach is taken.

Well I would be happy to look at your sources to the extent that I can. I assume you are looking at this from both sides as well and not getting the views of science from listening to creationists. I can generally be fairly objective when I need be. I also assume this is about understanding what the evidence means rather than just using the evidence to promote some forgone conclusion?

 

[AllanV]

Literally everything you just said is pseudoscientific nonsense that has been refuted time and time again. You cannot make a case for YEC by paraphrazing Answers in Genesis.

Confirmation bias. You are fishing for 'evidence' to support your foregone conclusion while ignoring any and all evidence that contradicts your narrowly defined view of creation. This is exactly what AIG and ICR do. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Using their same fallacious reasoning I could convince you that the Easter Bunny created the universe out of a magical egg six thousand years ago.

Everything written is from memory of what was presented by scientists who during their life's work and as technology has improved have changed their view.

With out the appropriate tools a theory of evolution was developed and it has displayed confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

There was a recent documentary that David Attenborough presented on the flying Dinosaur and there is no basis for it to be even possible that the hair like material would give such a creature the ability to fly. This is what prominent scientists are saying, not me, what do I know about it.
But here it is being presented in a way that makes it fact.
This has occurred over and over again as far as the people who know about these things say.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no requirement to prove God. The seed is either inherent or not and a person cannot be convinced beyond what their mind will allow. It is good to share with believers and this forum is called Christian but there is some indication it could be run by Atheists.

In your opinion then, God decides to inherently plant the seed in some people, but not others?

Why would a God who cares for all his creation do that?

Why do 2/3 of the worlds population not agree with Christianity? Did God choose to doom all these people, by not inherently planting the seed in them?

 

[Givemeareason]

Everything written is from memory of what was presented by scientists who during their life's work and as technology has improved have changed their view.

With out the appropriate tools a theory of evolution was developed and it has displayed confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

There was a recent documentary that David Attenborough presented on the flying Dinosaur and there is no basis for it to be even possible that the hair like material would give such a creature the ability to fly. This is what prominent scientists are saying, not me, what do I know about it.
But here it is being presented in a way that makes it fact.
This has occurred over and over again as far as the people who know about these things say.

Who are the people who know these things? What did David Attenborough say or was it someone else drawing conclusions from what he said. Science is continually making new discoveries and sometimes they refute the old.

 

[Givemeareason]

There is no requirement to prove God. The seed is either inherent or not and a person cannot be convinced beyond what their mind will allow. It is good to share with believers and this forum is called Christian but there is some indication it could be run by Atheists.

It appears to me this is a remarkably impartial board. Where did you get that idea?